6 responses

  1. ravi
    April 13, 2010

    excellent differences explanation,i came to know a lot from this ‘different ‘ site,thanx


  2. mitesh bisht
    March 28, 2011

    dude thank you realy very much
    because sumita arora IP class 12 book is realy confusing about this matter
    and is somewhat wrong that’s what i felt
    the difference are realy awesome!
    sumita arora books need to change!


  3. saurabh
    July 24, 2011

    sir, I want to tell thanks to you because i know the diferent between in them with the help of you. I read more of books to know it


  4. Carlos
    April 8, 2013

    Great explanation! Thank you so much!


  5. Mark Holmquist
    December 21, 2013


    I’d like to correct a major mistake in your article: What you describe as free software is actually copyleft.

    You’re thinking of the GNU GPL, which requires that any derivative works of a covered work must be distributed under the GNU GPL as well. Free software also includes many non-copyleft licenses – the MIT license, the BSD license, and even the WTFPL license are all considered free, but are not as encouraged by the Free Software Foundation because they allow derivatives to be distributed as non-free software.

    Please rewrite this article as a comparison of copyleft and permissive licenses, or rewrite it to talk about the differences between the two movements that basically do the same work for different reasons.


  6. c107
    December 21, 2013

    I told marktraceur about this article in #fsf. The article contains misinformation. Free software can, indeed, work with proprietary software. LibreOffice is a prime example of this. In contrast, Microsoft has dragged its feet in implementing Open Document Format for its word processor. And, let’s not forget that Apple’s proprietary system, OS X, is certified Unix built on free software. I hope this helps.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop